LETTERS

From Nelly PaleologouIn a recent article entitled “Subsidiarity fears delay ‘green’ plans” (volume 2, issue 38), Michael Mann refers to the communication adopted by the European Commission on 22 October on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law.

European Voice

10/30/96, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 1:39 AM CET

The proposals made by the Commission in its new communication could in fact facilitate the implementation of existing directives. However, we consider the communication a rather blunt tool for addressing the fundamental problem of the lack of implementation of EU legislation.

The immediate problem remains and we wonder what is going to happen pending the adoption of the proposed new instruments, such as a new legal act on access to justice.

Also, when the time comes to discuss their specifics, what safeguards are there that the Council of Ministers or even the Commission will not freeze the adoption of the proposals in the name of subsidiarity?

Thus the problem of the implementation of existing directives remains. What are the member states and the Commission actually doing to ensure effective enforcement?

We note in particular that 17 years after the entry into force of the directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409), most infringements procedures initiated against member states with respectto this directive concern incorrect transposition of its provisions or improper implementation.

More worrying still is France’s public declarationthat it will not implement the Habitats Directive (92/43) which was unanimously adopted. We note that four years on, most member states have still not met their obligations under this directive.

The list by no means ends here. We could also have chosen the examples of the directives on water quality or waste.

The infringement procedures initiated by the Commission against most of the member states are very slow and the end results are not very fruitful. Even the judgements of the European Court of Justice often take years to be complied with, as demonstrated by the Santona judgement which was issued against Spain in 1993 and which has still not been respected.

Furthermore, the figures given in the Environmental Agency’s report on the review of the Fifth Action Programme clearly show that progress to date in the area of environmental policy is insufficient and that the environment continues to be at risk as a result.

How then will a new Commission communication (a non-binding document), which might be endorsed by the Council in 1997 (all being well), provide the solution to problems which have existed for more than 20 years?

In order to tackle the urgent problem of implementation, perhaps one could consider the reallocation by the Commission and member states of money used in other policy areas to the implementation of environmental directives. In practice, this could be done on a yearly basis with each budget line for the policy concerned devoting a small portion of its resources to the implementation of relevant environmental directives.

This would provide a practical solution to the problems facing the environment and would certainly facilitate environmental integration. Furthermore, nobody could invoke the principle of subsidiarity since the directives are already in force and the member states are bound by law to implement them. Perhaps this is an idea that the European Parliament could take on board for next year’s budget?

Nelly PaleologouEU Policy Coordinator,BirdLife International, BrusselsFrom Juan OvejeroStanley Johnson, new European head of the InternationalFund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), is perhaps right in saying that animal welfare and conservation should be more closely linked (volume 2,issue 37).

However, it is interesting to note that in support of this argument, he could only present the most inconsequential example: that better welfare in zoos means fewer animals taken from the wild.

Could this be an indicator of the highly-conflictual relationship IFAW actually enjoys with the conservation community?

There can be few, if any, conservationists who would argue with the principle of animal welfare that “unnecessary suffering” must be avoided.

IFAW, however, has an agenda that goes beyond that of a pet shelter or abattoir inspector, so far indeed that it has become indistinguishable from animal rights.

And no matter how much Stanley Johnson may wish it otherwise, conservationists and animal rights campaigners have yet to find common ground.

While highlighting the methods by which animalsare hunted, IFAW’s propaganda makes it clear that improving killing techniques is not its goal. Its goal is to end the hunt.

Further weakening Johnson’s case for a constructive relationship with conservationists is the fact that IFAW actually hinders conservation in two important ways.

First, it campaigns for select species only, which confounds efforts to implement multi-species management.

Secondly, by destroying the commercial value of species, it has also reduced the incentive for rural communities to conserve them. This is totally at odds with the contemporary wisdom among conservationists, that the cooperation of rural communities is vital.

For these reasons and more, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has just voted for the second time to bar IFAW from membership.

Meeting for the World Conservation Congress this October in Montreal, 77% of the IUCN’s government members (72 states and 100 government agencies) and 66% of its NGO members (659 national and international NGOs) said IFAW did not meet the criteria for membership, despite an impassioned plea from Johnson himself.

I say “for these reasons and more” because the IUCN could not ignore the devastation IFAW has wrought on human communities.

From now on, decision-makers working on environmental and natural resource management and conservation in the EU institutions should know that IFAW is not that popular among the conservation family.

IFAW’s founder Brian Davies once boasted: “The wreckage of the sealing industry represents … the most important animal welfare success of modern times.”Juxtapose this with the following statement by Rosemarie Kuptana, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, on learning of IFAW’s rejection. “This is a huge victory for indigenous peoples around the world.”Or this one from Champion Chinoyi of the Zimbabwe Trust, an NGO involved in promoting Zimbabwe’s ‘Campfire’ rural development programme: “This vote sends a strong message to governments who have flirted with IFAW in the past – it is simply not on. IFAW may be good at PR, but the reality of its actions on the ground speaks louder than sensationalist advertising.”Given that IFAW generates such animosity wherever it casts its shadow, Johnson’s dream that the organisation can work constructively with conservationists is, sadly, a pipe dream.

Juan OvejeroAfrica Resources Trust, BrusselsFrom Volkan IcierCongratulations on yourso-biased articles on Cyprus (volume 2, issue 36). I do not feel like making counter arguments in detail. However, I need to point out the following:

Both articles give an impression that everybody but the Turks is right, so all the blame is to be put on the Turks.

Honesty is essential, therefore those whose main concern has been to blame the Turks should ask the following questions: who started the Cyprus problem by killing innocent Turkish children and women before 1974? Do you think hundreds of Turks committed suicide? Let us not go so far back. Who attacked the Turkish border? Should the Turks welcome the fanatic Greeks encouraged by theso-called Cypriot Greek government so that they would restart their murders?

Everybody should understand that the island is divided and shall/should remain divided because the parties are so far from each other.

They have nothing in common, so love on this “Island of Love” is impossible.

Since the Turks do not want to experience those black days again, any attempt to put pressure on them for a forced marriage is – and will be – useless.

The best solution is a peaceful divorce. Otherwise, both ethnic groups will suffer, which they do not deserve to do.